23 comments

If you are selling cakes generally you can’t discriminate among your customers. That would mean a black bakery (i.e. a public store which is also terms a ‘public accomodation’ which means open to the general public as opposed to, say, a private social club or a ‘freelance’ baker) could not refuse white customers.

However, there is 100% freedom in product discrimination. The black baker is free to say his store will not sell cakes with confederate flags on it. An anti-SSM baker is likewise free to say he only sells cakes with brides and grooms on top. Of course what the customer does with the cake after they buy it is their business.

To be honest in the anti-SSM debate I would think advocates would be a bit embarassed by the whole ‘wedding cake baker issue’. For a side that began the debate asserting they were fighting for civilization to end with nitpicking over center pieces, flowers and cakes….rather pathetic no?

Actually that was the hue and cry in several cases. They are free to do so, but will face hate mail, death threats, and public uproar (modern version of tar and feathering)

Facebook is full of versions of this story. A vet goes into a local business with his service dog. The business kicks him out or refuses him service. What follows later is hundreds of hateful comments, boycott pledges, etc. etc.

The pathetic part is the uproar denying a basic freedom on the one hand while professing support for the same.

You seem to confuse freedom with consquences. You are free to say and do quite a bit, if people stop being your friend because they don’t like that, tough shit. It wasn’t so long ago NRA loonies demanded boycotting the Wounded Warrior Project because they didn’t want to do a gun themed fundraiser. Where was freedom there? They’re a private charity,no? Why can’t they decide for themselves what types of things to be associated with?

They are free to do so, but will face hate mail, death threats, and public uproar (modern version of tar and feathering).

Yes, the streets ran red with the blood of traditional minded bakers lynched and then drawn and quartered by angry pro-SSM mobs.

In reality there were a handful of examples, maybe a lawsuit or two and little else. For example, can you name a single bakery or Chick-Fil-La branch that closed due to their anti-SSM stances? Even one in this nation of over a quarter billion people?

“Would a Black owned bakery be similarly treated for refusing a family baking a cake in memory of their ancestors bearing the Battle Flag of the Army of North Virginia? Hmm?”

No. I think you misread how peoples’ logic works in this area. The Christian baker who refuses to sell a cake for a gay wedding is the bad guy because there’s nothing wrong with being gay, so she should sell them the cake. The black baker who refuses to bake a cake with a confederate battle flag is the good guy because the confederate battle flag necessarily stands for racism, which is bad.

The operating principle is: “you shouldn’t refuse to bake cakes for people who aren’t bad, but you’re free to refuse when someone asks you to bake a cake adorned in a way that’s symbolically evil”.

This, by the way, is roughly the same logic used by most Christians who support the Christian bakers in the above scenario. That’s because, for them, a cake for a same-sex wedding is necessarily symbolic of evil.

Basically most people just want their own morality enshrined as the law of the land.

Seems to me a better operating principle is that you can sell what you want. If you don’t sell something, you don’t actually make money. If you’re willing to bear the lost opportunity costs, bully for you.

You might also, be more charitable about your opinion of peoples motivations. They might not be “celebrating evil” but be a sitcom fan, or even more linked to history and the real world, thankful that their great great grand-pappy survived losing a leg at Shiloh and now they could be alive today.

“So. Riddle me this instead, what is symbolically evil about the Dukes of Hazzard?”

Nothing. Context matters. Though, given Dukes of Hazzard was a TV show, its producers were free to make the Duke Boys eminently likeable and without a racist bone in their bodies, despite living in rural Georgia in the 70s and driving around in a care called “The General Lee” with a big Confederate Flag painted on its side. I leave it to you to decide whether that’s realistic.

In any case, I wasn’t saying I personally feel the flag is a symbol of evil. I’m saying many people do, and many are willing to assume racist motivations of someone requesting it on a cake. So they’re not inconsistent in supporting the black cake maker but not the Christian. The operating principle is the same. Refusing to make a cake for someone who isn’t “bad” is bad. Refusing to make a cake for someone who is “bad” is not bad.

“Seems to me a better operating principle is that you can sell what you want. If you don’t sell something, you don’t actually make money. If you’re willing to bear the lost opportunity costs, bully for you.”

That is arguably true. But it’s beside the point I was making, which is: it’s not “obviously” hypocritical to support the black baker in your hypo but not the Christian.

That would be true if people’s logic were “bakers shouldn’t have to bake cakes they find personally offensive”. But I don’t think that’s the logic being employed. Rather, it’s “bakers shouldn’t have to bake cakes that I find offensive.” Or, more charitably, “that a reasonable person might find offensive”. Or, possibly, “…unless doing so would disparately impact an oft-discriminated-against category of person”.

I tend to veer towards the legal questions. There the mythical baker is a distraction. One is free to choose his products, not his customers. Bakers can refuse to make confederate cakes, cakes with same sex couples on them, etc., they cannot close their shop to rednecks, whites, gays, and so on.

Now buddy points out the moral question. How should we feel about a Black baker who refuses to make a confederate cake, a Jewish baker who refuses to make a Nazi cake (actually there was a guy in NJ who named his kid Adolf Hitler and the local bakery refused to make a birthday cake), or an anti-SSM baker who refuses to make a cake with two grooms or two brides.

I too would tend to be less inclined to support the last baker. For one thing, even if you share all the theological arguments against SSM, by no means can you equate SSM with those other symbols. For another thing, most of the time you hear about things like this it is very selective consistency. The business that refuses to cover contraceptive because it *may* be used in a way their faith rejects also covers viagra without any inquiry to the man’s marital status or the purpose to which he intends to put his erections. Do Catholic bakeries often refuse to bake cakes for divorced customers on the grounds that their impending wedding is bigamy per the New Testament?

If such a person was consistent and sincere, though, I would be inclined to leave him alone just as I don’t bug people who don’t eat meat on Fridays….if someone ran a dinner that did ‘meatless Fridays’ during Lent I wouldn’t care.

Hmm. Indeed. So, am I to regard as a supporter of evil, torture or genocide every college kid or other young adult with a Che, Stalin, Hammer/Sickle, Mao T-shirt or flag? Or should one figger they either think it puts them in a “in group”, think it’s stylish, or find that they symbol for them is not one which represents torture, murder, rape, and genocide? If you are correct, I should be ripping those flags down, spitting at the kids, and otherwise trying my best to ostracize and shame them.

Refusing to make a cake for someone who isn’t “bad” is bad. Refusing to make a cake for someone who is “bad” is not bad.

Here’s the thing. What is bad is a value judgement. It isn’t an absolute. Seems to me that more often than racial issues, the Battle Flag is a symbol of regional pride for those who display it. As I’ve said, to assume it is sign of racism is uncharitable.

For one thing, even if you share all the theological arguments against SSM, by no means can you equate SSM with those other symbols.

Hmm. So, you are a non-racist, non-bigoted conservative Christian whose great great grandfather fought at Shiloh for the Army of Virginia, lost a leg, but survived. You see the flag as a symbol of your families survival. You believe that gay sexual congress is a sin and that the Battle flag is a symbol of your family’s survival against great odds. “By no means” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Boonton,

If such a person was consistent and sincere, though, I would be inclined to leave him alone just as I don’t bug people who don’t eat meat on Fridays….if someone ran a dinner that did ‘meatless Fridays’ during Lent I wouldn’t care.

David Schraub over at his blog is a left wing lawyer (was law student) who studied race sort of issues extensively. He was personally offended that an airline served free cheeseburgers (as he is Jewish mixing cheese and meat violates his religious dietary/fasting rules). I told him it was a free offering, he was free to follow his religious dictates and not accept same. If someone ran a diner and didn’t offer any meatless (or dairy free) offerings on Friday (Wednesdays too … Monday’s if you’re really strict, btw) … is that problematic, ’cause gosh the diner doesn’t serve anything that you could eat and not break your religious rules.

I too would tend to be less inclined to support the last baker.

Look. It’s all value judgement and it’s personal. You want to pretend that the linked symbol in the prior remark of mine (Heer/Werhmacht) is more offensive than two guys on a cake. That’s your opinion. By saying you approve of their being tarred and feathered (or the equivalent) means your the one who is inconsistent, in that you pretend multi-cuturalism is a value of yours. That apparently means you should respect other peoples values, except apparently when you don’t feel like it or it might cost you brownie points with yer liberal buddies.

The business that refuses to cover contraceptive because it *may* be used in a way their faith rejects also covers viagra without any inquiry to the man’s marital status or the purpose to which he intends to put his erections. Do Catholic bakeries often refuse to bake cakes for divorced customers on the grounds that their impending wedding is bigamy per the New Testament?

So? Someone somewhere is inconsistent. You are inconsistent in your non-support of IIM while supporting SSM. Apparently consistency is only for the other guy. Seriously, though that some people are inconsistent isn’t a basis for argument. Some other people are consistent.

Hmm. So, you are a non-racist, non-bigoted conservative Christian whose great great grandfather fought at Shiloh for the Army of Virginia, lost a leg, but survived. You see the flag as a symbol of your families survival. You believe that gay sexual congress is a sin and that the Battle flag is a symbol of your family’s survival against great odds. “By no means” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Again I think the subjective at some point transitions into an objective fact which cannot be ignored. Rephrase the above by imaging your grandfather fought for Nazi Germany and you see the Swastika as a symbol of your family’s survival. Even though you do not think that Jews should be put in camps and killed, there is no way society is going to accept your decision to drive around with a swastika bumper sticker as anything other than you telling the world you are anti-semetic.

You want to pretend that the linked symbol in the prior remark of mine (Heer/Werhmacht) is more offensive than two guys on a cake. That’s your opinion. By saying you approve of their being tarred and feathered (or the equivalent) means your the one who is inconsistent,

And what exactly is the ‘equilivant’? Do you know what it really meant to be tarred and feathered? Do you think losing ratings on your TV reality show or just being unpopular is the ‘equilivant’ to tarring and feathering?

So? Someone somewhere is inconsistent. You are inconsistent in your non-support of IIM while supporting SSM

You have demonstrated no such inconsistency. You want the right for others to make judgements but yet you want to deny me (and everyone else) the right to judge the judgements of others. That is inconsistent to the extreme. I have every right to question the judgement of the baker who uses his cakes to try to push his views of SSM on everyone else while he gives everyone else a pass. I have every right to decide that general commerce is not a fit tool to try to push one’s agenda.

And again I remind you I’m talking here about choosing one’s customers rather than choosing one’s products. I have no problem with a bakery that only sells bride-groom cakes just like I have no problem with a Christian bookstore that only sells Christian books leaving those who want to buy 50 Shades of Grey or a book about Buddhism to look elsewhere. I do have a problem with a public store that attempts to screen its customers because it thinks they may be gay or Jewish or Buddhist or whatnot.

Seriously, though that some people are inconsistent isn’t a basis for argument. Some other people are consistent.

It is a basis for judgement. If you don’t think reality and logic are purely subjective then they do at least command consistency. Can you argue that it is impossible for flawed humans to be perfectly consistent? Sure and a great basketball player doesn’t make every shot he takes, but a miss is still a miss.

Rephrase the above by imaging your grandfather fought for Nazi Germany and you see the Swastika as a symbol of your family’s survival.

Actually, (see link above .. in the comment). That’s the symbol he most likely fought under … ’cause if he didn’t he was in the SS and was likely putting people in camps.

Again I think the subjective at some point transitions into an objective fact which cannot be ignored.

So. The symbols the left likes that often are touted, Mao, Che, hammer/sickle, Stalin … are these “objective facts” which you prefer to ignore or not?

Do you think losing ratings on your TV reality show or just being unpopular is the ‘equilivant’ to tarring and feathering?

Do you think being bombarded by press, excoriated in the national media, having lies and slander spread about you, receiving constant hate mail & death threats, and the loss of job are “losing ratings on your reality TV show”? (and what effing TV show are you talking about?)

Boonton,
It occurred to me you don’t even believe what you are saying.

Again I think the subjective at some point transitions into an objective fact which cannot be ignored.

If the “General Lee” was called the “Heydrich Himmler” and had a swastika on top you’d not be defending that show for being harmless and the car and flag a symbol of Southern pride … but something else entirely. So you yourself don’t think the Battle Flag has that “objective” status to which you’d pretend.

For example, if on the other hand for your German example …the flag was the linked symbol (Heer) and the car was the “General Model“, things might be a little more muddied I suspect, i.e., not as “objectively” offensive.

So. The symbols the left likes that often are touted, Mao, Che, hammer/sickle, Stalin … are these “objective facts” which you prefer to ignore or not?

Actually they haven’t since quite a few people adopt such symbols without any intention of supporting the bad that happened under them. The swastika, on the other hand, has been adopted not just by the historical Nazi Germany but by many others since who support the bad. This is in contrast to other symbols, perhaps like the German cross, used by Germany’s military that have not had such a post WWII career.

I would say the Confederate flag lies between these two extremes. It’s not all associated with racists but post-war racists have embraced it. Unlike the Dukes of Hazzard, no one is going to make a comedy about nice German teens who ride around in a car with a huge swastika on its roof. But I think historically the post-Civil War flag is in fact tarnished enough to be considered suspect.

Bride-groom cake

You might not. But many on the left certainly do and have.

Evidence? Show me bakies shut down because they refuse to offer a customized cake versus refusing to serve a customer.

And how do you find that the Battle Flag is “objectively” wrong, but Che & Mao are not?

You happen to be a member of the “yip club”. Purposefully named to mean nothing. You discover 1 out of 10,000 members is a neo-nazi. No big deal. After a few months, though, you notice the neo-nazis have gravitated to the club. Now they are 1 out of 10 members. When they get to a certain point, the “yip club” is going to be associated with neo-nazism. You may hold on for a while trying to hold off the tide of nazis but at some point your membership is going to start reflecting upon you, unfairly.

Why would neo-nazis like the ‘yip’ cub more than the ‘piy’ club? Totally subjective but enough ‘vote’ with their membership and subjective becomes objective. Why did racism embrace the confederate battle flag rather than another flag or symbol, which the confederacy had quite a few? Who knows but that is a reality.

IMO the ‘General Lee’ is a bit like the holdout in the ‘yip club’ but with a key difference. At least one could say if you were a ‘hold out’ you are aware of the reputation the yip’s are getting but you’re trying to fight it. The Lee, IMO, does not recognize the meaning many have attached to the confederate flag but in fact is part of the negative tradition of the symbol. Namely pretending the Confederacy was about something other than racism. South-lovers who both confront that while embracing the flag might make an interesting change in how the symbol is perceived, but the Dukes of Hazzard are not enough. While we are on the subject, Hogan’s Heros probably would not be made today given how the show ignored the reality of what the Germans were fighting for.

Hmm. Indeed. So, am I to regard as a supporter of evil, torture or genocide every college kid or other young adult with a Che, Stalin, Hammer/Sickle, Mao T-shirt or flag?

No. Occam’s Razor. College kid with a Che shirt is more likely “an idiot” than “someone who understands and affirms Che’s murderous reality”. Again, context. It’s somewhat more reasonable to suspect that a guy ordering a cake with a confederate battle flag on it is doing so because he understands and affirms what the confederacy stood for. That being, among other things, defending the right to hold slaves.

To take this a little further: I would not support (and I suspect many people would similarly not support) a Korean baker who escaped from a N. Korean prison camp if he refused to bake a cake that with plain red icing and no symbols. Even if he says “but Red is the color of communism, which is evil!” Why? Because the likelihood that someone ordering a plain red cake is doing so because they want it to symbolize communism is vanishingly small.

Side observation: part of the reason the black baker gets more sympathy is that he likely suffered (albeit indirectly) at the hands of racist southerners. The Christian baker likely hasn’t suffered at the hands of same-sex couples. So people are willing to cut the black baker some slack in a way they’re not willing to do for the Christian baker. His reluctance to bake the confederate cake is seen as “more reasonable” given his connection to slavery.

Here’s the thing. What is bad is a value judgement. It isn’t an absolute.

Agree. Back to my original point: if their rule is “bakers should be able to refuse to bake anything I think is bad” then it’s not inconsistent to support the black guy but not the Christian. If the rule is “bakers shouldn’t have to bake anything they personally find offensive” then, yes, it’s inconsistent. You’re assuming their rule is the latter. I’m not so sure.

Seems to me that more often than racial issues, the Battle Flag is a symbol of regional pride for those who display it. As I’ve said, to assume it is sign of racism is uncharitable.

I agree it’s typically a symbol of regional pride. What detractors argue, I think, is that in order to be proud of “The South” one must necessarily discount its terrible past to a degree that isn’t reasonable. Moreover, when you know a great many people in the South regard it as patently offensive and yet you still display it with pride then it says something about how you regard the feelings of those people. It communicates, “I don’t give a damn what you think about the flag; I’m flying it anyway.” One could argue it’s “racist” (or, at least, “pointedly insensitive toward blacks”) for that reason alone.

You happen to be a member of the “yip club”. Purposefully named to mean nothing. You discover 1 out of 10,000 members is a neo-nazi. No big deal. After a few months, though, you notice the neo-nazis have gravitated to the club. Now they are 1 out of 10 members. When they get to a certain point, the “yip club” is going to be associated with neo-nazism. You may hold on for a while trying to hold off the tide of nazis but at some point your membership is going to start reflecting upon you, unfairly.

Hmm. OK. You are in the “yip” club too. And 1 out of 10k members is a neo-nazi. On a few occasions those neo-nazi’s got famous doing horrific things. The membership ratio hasn’t changed but a significant (and arguably uncharitable) sector of the public and press have decided that “yip” is the problem and are calling for a removal of “yip” from the public view. Which bring you to ..

But I think historically the post-Civil War flag is in fact tarnished enough to be considered suspect.

Why? The extremist “membership” is not changed. Just your flawed perception.

Actually they haven’t since quite a few people adopt such symbols without any intention of supporting the bad that happened under them.

So. You are charitable in your perception of the motives of people on the left. Why can’t you extend this out of your own in-group? You do realize that the ability to extend charitable views outside your own in group is what defines multi-culturalism? Which you tout as a virtue, but apparently fail to practice. This is my point. Thanks for making it so well for me.

College kid with a Che shirt is more likely “an idiot” than “someone who understands and affirms Che’s murderous reality”

And a guy with a Battle Flag of North Virginia is just as likely to have regional pride than be a racist. As I pointed out in the prior comment, you are willing to be charitable in your perception of the motives of people on the left. Why can’t you extend this out of your own in-group? You do realize that the ability to extend charitable views outside your own in group is what defines multiculturalism? Which you tout as a virtue, but apparently fail to practice. This is my point. Thanks for making it so well for me..

Again, context. It’s somewhat more reasonable to suspect that a guy ordering a cake with a confederate battle flag on it is doing so because he understands and affirms what the confederacy stood for

What detractors argue, I think, is that in order to be proud of “The South” one must necessarily discount its terrible past to a degree that isn’t reasonable.

Well, I guess that’s why they chose a symbol (the battle flag) that wasn’t very strongly connected with slavery in the way other symbols might have been (how many soldiers in the war owned slaves? Answer, very few as slaves were expensive and the rank and file soldier was not wealthy).

I would not support (and I suspect many people would similarly not support) a Korean baker who escaped from a N. Korean prison camp if he refused to bake a cake that with plain red icing and no symbols.

I suppose you’ve seen the pictures going around the nets that a Wal-Mart bakery refused to bake a Battle-Flag cake but did in fact bake an ISIS flag one? What’s that inform you? That the political correctness disease is very silly? This flag thing is PC gone wild. It’s stupid and should be resisted.

Mr Howard,
Oh, and “Occam’s Razor”? Occam’s razor is a preference for the simplest theory that explains phenomena. If it is “simpler” to assume that the Che shirt wearer is an idiot and ignorant of history … how is that simpler than the assumption that he is friendly toward communism in spite of the horrific crimes that accompany every communist regime?

The [Confederate] flag is a symbol my great grandfather fought under and in defense of. I am for flying it anywhere anybody wants to fly it. I do know perfectly well what pain it causes my black friends, but I think that pain is not necessary if they would read the confederate constitution and knew what the confederacy really stood for. This country has two grievous sins on its hands. One of them is slavery – whether we’ll ever be cured of it, I don’t know. The other one is emancipation – they told 4 million people, you’re free, hit the road, and they drifted back into a form of peonage that in some ways is worse than slavery. These things have got to be understood before they’re condemned. They’re condemned on the face of it because they take that flag to represent what those yahoos represent as – in their protest against civil rights things. But the people who knew what that flag really stood for should have stopped those yahoos from using it as a symbol of what they stood for. But we didn’t – and now you had this problem of the confederate flag being identified as sort of a roughneck thing, which it is not. . . .

I don’t object to any individual hiding from history, but I do object to their hiding history from me. And that’s what seems to me to be going on here. There are a lot of terrible things that happened in American history, but we don’t wipe ’em out of the history books; we don’t destroy their symbols; we don’t forget they ever happened; we don’t resent anybody bringing it up. The confederate flag has been placed in that position that’s unique with an American symbol. I’ve never known one to be so despised.

No, emancipation was not a sin. Blacks in the South did well after emancipation until the counterreaction which restricted the businesses they could open, the places they could live, and how they could travel. This was all backed up by a manufactured mythology that freed blacks were suddenly adrift without slavery and were either helpless or became violent criminals and this was partially ‘solved’ by the rise of Jim Crow and Segregation.

As for the Confederate Constitution, well you can read it here http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp. Granted I read it fast but it is essentially copied from the US Constitution, almost word for word. The only difference I see is special provisions inserted to protect slavery inside the Confederacy (although importing slaves was banned). So what did the Confederacy ‘really stand for’ if its Constitution was nothing more than a rip off of the US Constitution plus slavery?

Boonton,
Ask Mr Foote. Those words aren’t mine. As for emancipation and manufactured mythology, Mr Foote is an historian … 19th century US history is not something I’ve been interested in. He says one thing, you say another. Hmm. I’m not going to get in the middle (although your advice would probably be to trust the professional after, all that’s your view on climate, eh?)

I do know perfectly well what pain it causes my black friends, but I think that pain is not necessary if they would read the confederate constitution and knew what the confederacy really stood for.

So I read the Confederate Constitution, I can see it stood for something other than slavery. But I did and found a rip off of the US Constitution with provisions for slavery added, nothing else.

This is an example of the confederate myth I talked about earlier. You might read that statement and think the confederacy was founded on something else….maybe more local rule, maybe some type of individual rights centered gov’t…maybe more Jefferson than Hamilton….but no, it’s the same dame thing plus slavery. So why does a historian, who should know better, tell me to read the confederate constitution and be wowed at how they were about something other than slavery? Perhaps your analogy with the kid wearing the Mao shirt is apt and as a result maybe those of us who are more knowledgeable should discourage such symbols even if some of the people who use them don’t quite realize what they are really about.